virgina count penalties

[Flexmoney]

Continuing the exploration...

I disagree - and believe it to be one penalty. The reason being is the competitor IS already being penalized for failing to comply with WSB via 10.2.2. Requiring them to incur an extra shot penalty (and assuming they weren't smart enough to miss on the last shot, an extra hit penalty as well) is double penalty for one mistake.

If that is the case, why do we even have an "extra shot" AND and "extra hit" penalty in the first place? The fundamental logic there would seem to be that the shooter is already penalized with either one...why do they get hit with another?

[rgkeller]

two procedurals are for firing more than six shots before the reload and fewer than six shots after the reload

there are no miss penalties as the situation was described because there are no misses due to the failure to fire six shots after the reload so 10.2.2 has no relevance in the instant case

What rule(s) would you use to support that call?

On reflection after tossing and turning all night I have changed my opinion.

I would assess one procedural under 10.2.4.

Changed my mind again after morning coffee. Total one procedural as above.

Edited September 21, 2010 by rgkeller

[Flexmoney]

two procedurals are for firing more than six shots before the reload and fewer than six shots after the reload

there are no miss penalties as the situation was described because there are no misses due to the failure to fire six shots after the reload so 10.2.2 has no relevance in the instant case

What rule(s) would you use to support that call?

On reflection after tossing and turning all night I have changed my opinion.

I would assess one procedural under 10.2.4.

Changed my mind again after morning coffee. Total one procedural as above.

10.2.4 A competitor who fails to comply with a mandatory reload will incur

one procedural penalty for each shot fired after the point where the

reload was required until a reload is performed.

Nik said 10.2.4 earlier too. I can't see it. The shooter engaged his T1-T6, performed the mandatory reload, and continued on. He did his mandatory reload, and in my opinion, he did it in the right place/time.

[Flexmoney]

OK... let me quit messing around here playing devil's advocate and get into it deeper.

9.4.5 rules (Virginia Count: Extra Shots, Extra Hits, Stacking) - Do Not Apply They ought to, but the wording, currently says "string"...and the shooter slips by on that technicality.

10.2.4 - Mandatory Reload - Does Not Apply The shooter did the mandatory reload.

10.2.2 - Does Not Apply - Per the official ruling that Aztec posted, it seems the newest version of the rule book has a new rule in it !!!

10.2.2.1

Procedural penalties

for failure to comply with stage procedures

do not apply to the number of shots fired. Penalties for firing

insufficient or additional shots is addressed in other rules and

must not

be penalized under the provisions of 10.2.2.

The possible infraction in question, arguably...two infractions, are negated by the current rules.

It's not an extra shot, because the shooter fired no extra shots within the sting. No extra hit. He did the reload. He engaged all the targets. And, 10.2.2.1 kills anything under 10.2.2 in this case.

The problem with 10.2.2.1 is that it says other rules cover this, and they don't. (I think 10.2.2.1 should stay, but the rules they refer to need a tweak).

The hole is in the 9.4.5 rules (all of them have the same hole).

If we step back here, what did the shooter actually do? He stacked a shot. It should receive a penalty. (and one penalty seems to be the idea behind the current thinking)

As it stands now...I can't see a rule to issue a penalty under.

Zero.

[Schutzenmeister]

If that is the case, why do we even have an "extra shot" AND and "extra hit" penalty in the first place? The fundamental logic there would seem to be that the shooter is already penalized with either one...why do they get hit with another?

Because they are two seperate events ... even if they happen to coincide within one shot.

Extra Shot - You fired too many rounds.

Extra Hit - You put too many rounds on a given target.

Either one can exist independently of the other. The extra shot is determined while the competitor is shooting. The extra hit is determined while the RO is scoring.

This sometimes leads to a judgement call for the shooter who believes he's missed a shot during a standards CoF. Does he make it up by taking an extra shot thus trading an extra shot penality for the miss penalty but gain the points for the hit ... and hopefully improving his HF? The risk is that he actually DIDN'T miss and he now has 2 penalties with no concomitant gain in HF.

'Tis the nature of a Standards CoF and a concept frequently not yet learned by many beginning shooters. It gives one a chance to at least partially redeem an earlier error in a Standards CoF but with a degree of risk ... If you were mistaken about your earlier mistake, you could wind up with even more penalties. It encourages knowing where every round went!

[JThompson]

OK... let me quit messing around here playing devil's advocate and get into it deeper.

9.4.5 rules (Virginia Count: Extra Shots, Extra Hits, Stacking) - Do Not Apply They ought to, but the wording, currently says "string"...and the shooter slips by on that technicality.

10.2.4 - Mandatory Reload - Does Not Apply The shooter did the mandatory reload.

10.2.2 - Does Not Apply - Per the official ruling that Aztec posted, it seems the newest version of the rule book has a new rule in it !!!

10.2.2.1

Procedural penalties

for failure to comply with stage procedures

do not apply to the number of shots fired. Penalties for firing

insufficient or additional shots is addressed in other rules and

must not

be penalized under the provisions of 10.2.2.

The possible infraction in question, arguably...two infractions, are negated by the current rules.

It's not an extra shot, because the shooter fired no extra shots within the sting. No extra hit. He did the reload. He engaged all the targets. And, 10.2.2.1 kills anything under 10.2.2 in this case.

The problem with 10.2.2.1 is that it says other rules cover this, and they don't. (I think 10.2.2.1 should stay, but the rules they refer to need a tweak).

The hole is in the 9.4.5 rules (all of them have the same hole).

If we step back here, what did the shooter actually do? He stacked a shot. It should receive a penalty. (and one penalty seems to be the idea behind the current thinking)

As it stands now...I can't see a rule to issue a penalty under.

Zero.

I don't think that 10.2.2.1 applies here because the number of shots was correct. Therefore it does not make 10.2.2 null in this case. You even made the point yourself, "It's not an extra shot, because the shooter fired no extra shots within the sting. No extra hit."

Penalties for firing insufficient or additional shots is addressed in other rules and

must not be penalized under the provisions of 10.2.2.

SInce there were no "additional" or "insufficient " shots fired, therefore 10.2.2.1 does apply. Whether that was the intent of the rule or not... Therefore, I still say failure to comply with the WSB and only one penalty under 10.2.2.

JT

Edited September 21, 2010 by JThompson

[aztecdriver]

+1 to all this. Flex, I'm amending my rule citation - as I was thinking about this last night, I think rgkeller has it. Forget for a second WHICH targets were shot and when, it doesn't matter. If 10.2.2.1 does not penalize for number of shots, 10.2.4 does. The shooter fired 7 shots, there would be no difference if they put 1 into each T1-T6 and then just swung back and smacked T1 again, in the given situation. 1 penalty per shot fired, which is 1 for 10.2.4 - failing to comply with a mandatory reload.

I did miss the 10.2.2.1 issue - and yet, I think the 10.2.4 response DOES address this - flex - care to shoot a hole in that?

and +1 to schutzenmeister - that's how I would answer that question.

ETA: Would we still penalize them for this: Shoot 2 into T1, 1 each into T2-T5, reload, Shoot 2 into T6, 1 each into T2-T5. I would saw yes, Penalty for failing to engage the targets as specified in the stage briefing.

Edited September 21, 2010 by aztecdriver

[JThompson]

two procedurals are for firing more than six shots before the reload and fewer than six shots after the reload

there are no miss penalties as the situation was described because there are no misses due to the failure to fire six shots after the reload so 10.2.2 has no relevance in the instant case

What rule(s) would you use to support that call?

On reflection after tossing and turning all night I have changed my opinion.

I would assess one procedural under 10.2.4.

Changed my mind again after morning coffee. Total one procedural as above.

10.2.4 doesn't work as he made the reload when he should have. (after engaging T6) What was he supposed to do drop the mag after T5 then shoot T6 then reload again? That dog doesn't hunt. He didn't follow the procedure and gets one for that under 10.2.2.

JT

Edited September 21, 2010 by JThompson

[ima45dv8]

10.2.4 doesn't work as he made the reload when he should have. (after engaging T3)

After T6 actually...

STAGE PROCEDURE (for added clarity):

Upon start signal, turn, then draw and from Box A

engage T1-T6 with only one round per target, then make a

mandatory reload and from Box A engage T1-T6 with only

one round per target.

What was he supposed to do drop the mag after T2 then shoot T3 then reload again? That dog doesn't hunt. He didn't follow the procedure and gets one for that under 10.2.2.

JT

That would avoid the penalty.

[JThompson]

I think this is being way over thought, but one thing this discussion has revealed is gross inconsistencies in how this particular scenario is being handled. If some of the best in the business can't agree on how to handle this issue, there is clearly room for clarification.

Until, or unless, I hear something from the NROI I will rule as I stated to begin with.

JT

Edited September 21, 2010 by JThompson

[elynch2007]

There is one penalty for the extra shot fired on T1 before the relaod, but there is not a rule for shooting less than required number of shots. Targets are scored for the right number of hits and which scoring zone the hits are in after the course of fire is completed. If the target was shot at during the COF then there can not be a FTE penalty.

[mhs]

The competitor gained a significant advantage by not having to make as many transitions as he should have. I think that falls under 10.2.2. I also think that 10.2.2.1 does not apply to this; the penalty would not be for the number of shots, but for eliminating a transition by not following the instructions.

[JThompson]

The competitor gained a significant advantage by not having to make as many transitions as he should have. I think that falls under 10.2.2. I also think that 10.2.2.1 does not apply to this; the penalty would not be for the number of shots, but for eliminating a transition by not following the instructions.

I understand why you say that and I had considered it as well. If it was done intentionally, it could be construed as an advantage, but having eaten a penalty for not following the WSB and having only one target involved, I don't see where it's significant. I like the thought process you had though...

JT

[mhs]

The competitor gained a significant advantage by not having to make as many transitions as he should have. I think that falls under 10.2.2. I also think that 10.2.2.1 does not apply to this; the penalty would not be for the number of shots, but for eliminating a transition by not following the instructions.

I understand why you say that and I had considered it as well. If it was done intentionally, it could be construed as an advantage, but having eaten a penalty for not following the WSB and having only one target involved, I don't see where it's significant. I like the thought process you had though...

JT

What would you do if someone tryed to completely game this one? Shot as intended, there would be 10 transitions. Shot 2-2-2 reload 2-2-2 there would be 4 transitions. If only one proceedural were given I think the second way could score higher.

[Flexmoney]

The competitor gained a significant advantage by not having to make as many transitions as he should have. I think that falls under 10.2.2. I also think that 10.2.2.1 does not apply to this; the penalty would not be for the number of shots, but for eliminating a transition by not following the instructions.

The shooter fired too many shots at one point, and not enough at another point. If that doesn't exactly fit 10.2.2.1, then I don't know what does. This completely negates 10.2.2 for this offense.

JT, 10.2.2.1 is the only rule here that really does fit, since is doesn't specify "within a string"...which is the limit on the others (9.4.5's).

[Flexmoney]

... and yet, I think the 10.2.4 response DOES address this - flex - care to shoot a hole in that?

As JT also said, the shooter is instructed to engage T1-T6 ...then...do the mandatory reload. That has been satisfied. Trying to apply 10.2.4 is stretching to make a penalty fit, because we feel there needs to be a penalty. (I've never seen anybody give a penalty out like that in any other case.)

================

Lets step back and look at this.

What happened.

The shooter stacked a shot.

I am pretty sure that most everybody will agree that stacking of shoots in VC deserve a procedural penalty?

That ought to fall under the 9.4.5 rules (which are what 10.2.2.1 is referring to, right?). But, there is a hitch in the 9.4.5 rules... George pointed it out in his first post:

Although the end result may be the same in the score, that is not the correct call.

Extra Shot [and/or stacking - my edit, KF] penalties are assessed for extra shots in a string (Rule 9.4.5.1). From what you told us, it appears that he fired the correct number of shots (12) in the string (7 before the reload and 5 after the reload).

Further, our opening poster and Troy's first thought was that this is an "extra shot". Though technically, it is "stacking", the idea is the same. The 9.4.5 rules ought to cover this, and they don't quite fit.

[mhs]

The competitor gained a significant advantage by not having to make as many transitions as he should have. I think that falls under 10.2.2. I also think that 10.2.2.1 does not apply to this; the penalty would not be for the number of shots, but for eliminating a transition by not following the instructions.

The shooter fired too many shots at one point, and not enough at another point. If that doesn't exactly fit 10.2.2.1, then I don't know what does. This completely negates 10.2.2 for this offense.

As soon as the competitor fired his second shot he had gained an advantage by eliminating a transition. He would have had this same advantage if he had fired two on the first target, one on each of the next four,and then reloaded. It's not about the number of shots fired, but where they were fired.

[rgkeller]

... and yet, I think the 10.2.4 response DOES address this - flex - care to shoot a hole in that?

As JT also said, the shooter is instructed to engage T1-T6 ...then...do the mandatory reload. That has been satisfied. Trying to apply 10.2.4 is stretching to make a penalty fit, because we feel there needs to be a penalty. (I've never seen anybody give a penalty out like that in any other case.)

================

Lets step back and look at this.

What happened.

The shooter stacked a shot.

I am pretty sure that most everybody will agree that stacking of shoots in VC deserve a procedural penalty?

That ought to fall under the 9.4.5 rules (which are what 10.2.2.1 is referring to, right?). But, there is a hitch in the 9.4.5 rules... George pointed it out in his first post:

Although the end result may be the same in the score, that is not the correct call.

Extra Shot [and/or stacking - my edit, KF] penalties are assessed for extra shots in a string (Rule 9.4.5.1). From what you told us, it appears that he fired the correct number of shots (12) in the string (7 before the reload and 5 after the reload).

Further, our opening poster and Troy's first thought was that this is an "extra shot". Though technically, it is "stacking", the idea is the same. The 9.4.5 rules ought to cover this, and they don't quite fit.

The stage description calls for a mandatory reload after engaging T1 through T6 with ONE ROUND EACH.

Shooter engaged after doing the above AND SHOOTING ONE MORE ROUND.

Clearly, 10.2.4 applies.

If not then when shooting El Presedent, shooting four rounds at T1, four rounds at T2, three rounds at T3, reload and one round at T3 would be permissable.

But 9.4.5 should be rewritten.

Edited September 21, 2010 by rgkeller

[JThompson]

The competitor gained a significant advantage by not having to make as many transitions as he should have. I think that falls under 10.2.2. I also think that 10.2.2.1 does not apply to this; the penalty would not be for the number of shots, but for eliminating a transition by not following the instructions.

The shooter fired too many shots at one point, and not enough at another point. If that doesn't exactly fit 10.2.2.1, then I don't know what does. This completely negates 10.2.2 for this offense.

JT, 10.2.2.1 is the only rule here that really does fit, since is doesn't specify "within a string"...which is the limit on the others (9.4.5's).

The total shots fired were exactly as they should be. Therefore no extra shots with regard to the string. Yes, he stacked two on the first target and cut out a transition in the process, for that he violated the WSB and gets a procedural. If you read the letter of the rule, to me, an extra shot would be above/below the total number specified for the string/

From 10.2.2

(firing multiple shots contrary to the required position or stance). This is exactly what happened... he shot two instead of one and if he gained significant he would go per shot. He did not shoot "extra" nor less than he was supposed too.

I'll let you guys take it from here... my mind is firm on this and I see no point it hashing it further. Unless I hear something"official" I shall rule as previously stated.

Best,

JT

[aztecdriver]

Again, thanks for the discussion. I've come full circle again on my thought process. The call is 10.2.2, one procedure for failing to follow stage briefing. This caused me to reread the rules in 10.2 again

Logic:

10.2.4 A competitor who fails to comply with a mandatory reload will incur one procedural penalty for each shot fired after the point where the reload was required until a reload is performed.

Given the exact OP scenario, the reload is required after T1-T6 were engaged with one round each. This was complied with. If the competitor had engaged T1-T5 then engaged T6 with two rounds, 10.2.4 would be the appropriate call here.

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occurrence. However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple

shots contrary to the required position or stance). Do not apply two different penalties for the same offense, (e.g. not firing the required rounds in a Virginia Count stage; competitor gets a miss and no procedural).

10.2.2.1 Procedural penalties for failure to comply with stage procedures do not apply to the number of shots fired. Penalties for firing insufficient or additional shots is addressed in other rules and must not be penalized under the provisions of 10.2.2.

Engage targets T1-T6 with one round each is a procedure, and has no bearing on the number of shots fired for the COF. It's clear from the E.G. example of significant advantage that firing multiple shots contrary to a required position or stance, that engagement stipulations in the COF do matter. It's an example, not to be construed as only stance or position matter, so that if firing more than one shot at a target as stipulated by the COF is a violation of 10.2.2 It doesn't, though, matter that 7 shots fired before the reload and 5 shots after - that's not the violation. It's that the second shot at the target happened prior to transitioning to the next target.

It's also considered, IMO, a competitive advantage such that if the scenario were that the competitor shot T1-T3 with 2 rounds each then finished the COF by 1 round T4-T6, reloaded, then T4-T6 with 1 round each, this would be 3 procedurals.

ETA - JT beat me to it, and I'm as firm as he is.

Edited September 21, 2010 by aztecdriver

[Flexmoney]

Again, step back and ask what actually happened.

When you do, you will see that what happened is what most would see as "stacking the shot". That is what the call should be, but the wording of 9.4.5 takes that away.

Our opening poster and Troy were of the right mind, calling it an extra shot (extra shot is in the same ballpark, it's just that stacking is a better fit).

All of the other attempts at attaching a different rule are work-arounds...since "technically" 9.4.5 rules don't apply.

[Corey]

9.4.5.3 Stacked shots (i.e. obviously shooting more than the required

rounds on a target(s) while shooting other target(s) with fewer

shots than specified in any string), will incur one procedural

penalty per target insufficiently engaged in any string.

shows that while we know it as "stacking", by the rules as written you cannot issue a penalty for such.

I've changed my mind and concur with the 1 procedural for not following the WSB

[murkish]

Again, step back and ask what actually happened.

When you do, you will see that what happened is what most would see as "stacking the shot". That is what the call should be, but the wording of 9.4.5 takes that away.

Our opening poster and Troy were of the right mind, calling it an extra shot (extra shot is in the same ballpark, it's just that stacking is a better fit).

All of the other attempts at attaching a different rule are work-arounds...since "technically" 9.4.5 rules don't apply.

Couldn't it be said that the course of fire described in the OP consisted of a single "string"? Looked at this way, I would say that 9.4.5.3 does apply.

[mhs]

Again, step back and ask what actually happened.

When you do, you will see that what happened is what most would see as "stacking the shot". That is what the call should be, but the wording of 9.4.5 takes that away.

Our opening poster and Troy were of the right mind, calling it an extra shot (extra shot is in the same ballpark, it's just that stacking is a better fit).

All of the other attempts at attaching a different rule are work-arounds...since "technically" 9.4.5 rules don't apply.

Couldn't it be said that the course of fire described in the OP consisted of a single "string"? Looked at this way, I would say that 9.4.5.3 does apply.

It is a single string, that's why 9.4.5.3 doesn't apply. The number of shots in the string was correct.

[ima45dv8]

No Extra Shot. No Extra Hit.

I would however award one procedural for 10.2.2, Failure to comply with the WSB (fired too many rounds before the reload).

I don't see 10.2.2.1 as prohibiting that because it's not about the number of shots fired. It's about the sequence of the shots fired.